quickbuckpro
New Member
Did anyone noticed the sample studio shot comparison were ISO 80 vs ISO 100 (m2) at same exposure
I looked at the test photos shown here earlier and realized that lower ISO 80 on RX100 vs ISO 100 on RX100 M2 at same exposure.
Based on that EXIF data, we can't really say that RX100 M2 is a wash out. It is really shot at different exposure so it is not a good comparison. When shuts are over exposed by 1/3 to 1/2 stop, it will look less saturated and DR for sure.
I looked at the test photos shown here earlier and realized that lower ISO 80 on RX100 vs ISO 100 on RX100 M2 at same exposure.
Based on that EXIF data, we can't really say that RX100 M2 is a wash out. It is really shot at different exposure so it is not a good comparison. When shuts are over exposed by 1/3 to 1/2 stop, it will look less saturated and DR for sure.
Based on what I reviewed in the comparometer, it seems IQ differences are thus:
In JPG, the mkII has a much improved jpg engine getting out 11EVs in low ISO, whereas the mkI could only get out 9. That's a marked improvement, as I've been forced to shoot RAW in bright light, so I could get some of that headroom out.
In terms of clean ISO, the mkII is much better at high ISO than the mkI. That's marginally useful to me, as I generally shoot in good light. I'd say only 10% of my shots come at ISO1600 or higher.
However, the MKII takes a step backwards in low ISO, with ISO100 being far less cleaner, and therefore a little less sharp, and I think 200 is also weaker, or maybe just even with the mkI.
So, it seems like pick-your-poison on IQ.
Then the other trade off is tilty screen, wifi and hotshoe (mkII) vs. smaller, lighter and cheaper (mkI)